Accidents increased significantly at intersections equipped with red light cameras in Grande Prairie, Canada according to a city report completed last month. The review found that after a full year of use, cameras generated $1.2 million in revenue along with a 126 percent increase in injury collisions. “Since the installation of red light cameras in Grande Prairie, the City has issued over 6000 violation tickets since the program was initiated,” red light camera Program Manager Garry Roth wrote in his report. “There have not been significant reductions in collisions, while only a few of these collisions during this time frame, have actually resulted from a red light violation.”
The program, which is run by the now-bankrupt vendor Nestor Traffic Systems, began issuing citations on June 28, 2008. The city report compiled one full year’s worth of accident data through June 28, 2009 and compared it with a five-year collision average prior to camera installation. The following chart shows the change in the number of injury accidents at each location:
| Location | Before | After | Change |
| 100 St at 132 Ave | 4 | 16 | +300% |
| 100 St at 116 Ave | 7.5 | 9 | +20% |
| 100 St at 100 Ave | 4 | 10 | +150% |
| 100 St at 99 Ave | 4 | 6 | +50% |
| 100 St at 84 Ave | 3.5 | 4 | +14% |
| 116 St at 100 Ave | 3 | 6 | +100% |
| 108 St at 100 Ave | 4.5 | 18 | +300% |
| Total | 30.5 | 69 | +126% |
These findings are consistent with independent studies conducted over the past decade that have documented significant increases in both overall and injury accidents where red light cameras are used (view studies). Despite the dismal results in Grande Prairie, city officials insist their camera program should be expanded. The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.
“Enforcement Services has promoted red light cameras as a means to reduce collisions,” Roth wrote. “While the collision numbers have not decreased significantly since the cameras have been installed, it is still the position of Enforcement Services that enforcement through the camera technology helps promote safe driving habits.”
Only a third of citations issued by the camera program went to straight through violations. Instead, the majority of tickets were issued to drivers who made right-hand turns on red. The number of turning violations would have been higher, but several of the camera-equipped intersections had dedicated turning lanes without traffic signals.
A copy of the report is available in a 45k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Review of Red Light Camera Program (City of Grande Prairie, Canada, 9/21/2009)
[courtesy thenewspaper.com]
As an Albertan, this is depressing. As a Canadian, this is depressing. As a car enthusiast, this is depressing. The government continues to suck on the tit of illusory enforcement.
“The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.”
Must be just there since Calgary has had them for years and years. I used to live in Calgary and got a red light ticket for a vehicle that was out of country with me at the time. Sadly that wasn’t enough proof that I didn’t do it and ended having to pay the fine. Around $100 if I remember correctly.
I am sure these cold, hard facts will have no bearing whatsoever on the proliferation of red light cameras. None.
Once again, saving lives or protecting people have nothing to do with it. It’s all about making $$$$
“Enforcement Services has promoted red light cameras as a means to reduce collisions,” Roth wrote. “While the collision numbers have not decreased significantly since the cameras have been installed, it is still the position of Enforcement Services that enforcement through the camera technology helps promote safe driving habits.”
Yeah, I’d say a 126% INCREASE is not a significant reduction. It is a significant increase, however. Being as this increase in accidents is balanced out by an increase in revenue, I mean safe driving habits, I’m sure they will expand the program.
I do not understand why this is tolerated in a supposedly free country. The politicians who authorize this travesty should be tarred and feathered. Perhaps that would teach the others a lesson.
This is ridiculous. Why would adding cameras increase collisions? I haven’t read thru all the linked articles, but quickly scanning the summaries shows no one even attempts to explain this.
There are many alternative explanations that should be investigated first, including:
1. Was the weather different in the single year shown here? A few big winter storms during rush hour could make up the entire difference.
2. Was there an increase in traffic/ population in this particular town? Not knowing anything about Grande Prarie, perhaps a major factory or tourist destination just opened up and traffic doubled.
3. Did the timing of these signals change? A shorter green maybe enticing people to try to speed through?
4. And the most plausible of all, how many of these “injury accidents” would have been minor enough to avoid official reporting? Now that the camera’s there, obviously they have photographic evidence of anything going on in those intersections and can therefore count it.
It simply doesn’t stand to reason that a red light camera INCREASES crashes by a margin like this. There must be other explanations.
I don’t recall ever driving in Grande Prairie, but any other town in Alberta that I’ve been to doesn’t ticket turning right on red. I’m questioning the accuracy of these ‘statistics’.
An increase in accidents (if it’s true) would likely result from rear-enders caused by following to closely and/or being distracted. This is an ugly indication of Grande Prairie drivers’ skills.
It simply doesn’t stand to reason that a red light camera INCREASES crashes by a margin like this. There must be other explanations.
Brilliant reasoning.
If I recall correctly there are a number of other studies which have also shown that red light cameras increase accidents. This is usually attributed to motorists slamming on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow – and then being rear-ended by the person behind them.
bwell :
October 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
If I recall correctly there are a number of other studies which have also shown that red light cameras increase accidents. This is usually attributed to motorists slamming on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow – and then being rear-ended by the person behind them.
Ding, ding, ding. Actually increasing yellow light durations rather than adding red light cameras has been shown to decrease the number of accidents. For Mr. Roth’s benefit, that means ther were fewer accidents after increasing the length of the yellow lights; this is known as a decrease (as opposed to more accidents).
For those that didn’t notice, here’s a link to nine studies that show red light cameras increase accidents:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
The logic is rather simple. The cameras issue tickets for minor technical infractions 95% of the time. That means people who enter the intersection a fraction of a second after the light turns red or the rolling turn thing that makes up 2/3rds of the tickets in GP.
The people who blow through a light dangerously are not deterred by a camera. Think about it, if you’re not deterred by seeing an SUV about to cross your path and collide with you, it’s because you’re not paying attention. A $100 camera ticket mailed two weeks later isn’t going to change that.
At the same time, cameras breed terror in timid drivers who slam on the brakes at the first hint of yellow. Bang. And contrary to the propaganda from those who profit from cameras, those accidents frequently involve injuries.
Sooner or later some smart legal firm is going to figure out how to hold somebody accountable for hazarding the public safety. If it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that injuries or deaths can be directly attributable to these cameras you’ll see them start disappearing with blinding speed.
A couple of $5M judgments against somebody ought to do the trick.
Don’t know if I am a timid driver but to avoid getting a red light camera ticket I follow 3 rules at camera controlled intersections.
1. Approach intersection in the right lane at 1/2 the posted speed limit. This gives me lots of time to stop with less chance of being rear ended.
2. I will not make a “free” right turn at a camera controlled intersection. Honk all you want but better to spend your energies lobbying your representatives to remove the devices.
3. Avoid towns/intersections with cameras known to me. I will not shop in business zones using these cameras.
Actually I am amazed at how lucrative these devices are. How oblivious or non-timid do you have to be to get nailed by these cameras?
Cameras are tax-generating devices for politicians too cowardly to raise taxes to pay for the services (and/or graft) their jurisdictions require.
Maryland recently started allowing speed cameras, but only in school and construction zones. Research shows that most drivers learn quickly and behavior changes within the camera’d zone. It stands to reason that any authority installing speed cameras for safety concerns will be able to control speeds effectively within relevant zones. But authorities installing them for revenue will be increasingly disappointed with income from each camera. The answer will be a ratcheting of speed limits ever lower (expect 5mph through school zones and 30 or 35 through expressway construction) and extension of these zones well past the area and hours of usefulness.
At some point we’ll all be better off riding bicycles, and since real police have better things to do than ticket a guy on a bike for going 20mph 200 yards after he’s passed an elementary school on a Sunday I should be okay.
Make your elected officials raise taxes to pay for their spending and tell them to stop turning every motorist into a criminal. I could see how burning or shooting the cameras would be satisfying too.
Just goes to show that governments can never have enough money and what happens when not enough citizens tell them to stop it (no pun intended).
We have a red light camera on the intersection between our house and the gym my family goes to. My wife got a $436 ticket in February. She never goes to the gym any more.
I still go to the gym 2 or 3 times a week. But I’m very cautious. Just last week I found myself coming to a complete stop before turning right, just to be safe. Even though the light was green.
I can see how red light cameras could increase accidents.
@volvo
Good points. I do much the same. But, I will still do right on red.
“How oblivious or non-timid do you have to be to get nailed by these cameras?”
Not that I’ve received one yet (knock on wood). But I can see it happening easy enough if you’re driving on unfamiliar territory. Especially in a city where traffic may slow unexpectedly due to people jay walking, bums walking in the middle of the street, lost drivers, window washers, etc…
The camera, unlike a REAL police officer, has no reasoning ability.
expect 5mph through school zones and 30 or 35 through expressway construction
People will find other routes without cameras.
During the 55 mph national speed limit, I took 2-lane state highways rather than the interstate. The speed limit was the same on both and enforcement was concentrated on the interstate.
Near where I work, there is a lightly traveled, 4-lane, divided road with a 25 mph speed limit. 40 mph would be more reasonable. I avoid it entirely because the local cops set up a speed trap at least once a year.
Um, guys?
I have no idea what that pic has to do with Vancouver, ‘cuz that accident is in Houston. Specifically, Westheimer Road between Bagby and Helena, in the Montrose neighborhood.
There are speed cameras nearby, but they don’t face Westheimer traffic (they’re geared toward people coming off “the spur” where it goes from 60 to 30 in a block). The accidents there happen because that road is way narrow (4 lanes squeezed into the space of 2).